Literature DB >> 21339352

A collaborative enterprise for multi-stakeholder participation in the advancement of quantitative imaging.

Andrew J Buckler1, Linda Bresolin, N Reed Dunnick, Daniel C Sullivan.   

Abstract

Medical imaging has seen substantial and rapid technical advances during the past decade, including advances in image acquisition devices, processing and analysis software, and agents to enhance specificity. Traditionally, medical imaging has defined anatomy, but increasingly newer, more advanced, imaging technologies provide biochemical and physiologic information based on both static and dynamic modalities. These advanced technologies are important not only for detecting disease but for characterizing and assessing change of disease with time or therapy. Because of the rapidity of these advances, research to determine the utility of quantitative imaging in either clinical research or clinical practice has not had time to mature. Methods to appropriately develop, assess, regulate, and reimburse must be established for these advanced technologies. Efficient and methodical processes that meet the needs of stakeholders in the biomedical research community, therapeutics developers, and health care delivery enterprises will ultimately benefit individual patients. To help address this, the authors formed a collaborative program-the Quantitative Imaging Biomarker Alliance. This program draws from the very successful precedent set by the Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise effort but is adapted to the needs of imaging science. Strategic guidance supporting the development, qualification, and deployment of quantitative imaging biomarkers will lead to improved standardization of imaging tests, proof of imaging test performance, and greater use of imaging to predict the biologic behavior of tissue and monitor therapy response. These, in turn, confer value to corporate stakeholders, providing incentives to bring new and innovative products to market. © RSNA, 2011.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21339352     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.10100799

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  64 in total

Review 1.  Opportunities and challenges facing biomarker development for personalized head and neck cancer treatment.

Authors:  Alexandra Lucs; Benjamin Saltman; Christine H Chung; Bettie M Steinberg; David L Schwartz
Journal:  Head Neck       Date:  2012-01-27       Impact factor: 3.147

2.  Imaging-based observational databases for clinical problem solving: the role of informatics.

Authors:  Alex A T Bui; William Hsu; Corey Arnold; Suzie El-Saden; Denise R Aberle; Ricky K Taira
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2013-06-17       Impact factor: 4.497

3.  Quantitative imaging test approval and biomarker qualification: interrelated but distinct activities.

Authors:  Andrew J Buckler; Linda Bresolin; N Reed Dunnick; Daniel C Sullivan; Hugo J W L Aerts; Bernard Bendriem; Claus Bendtsen; Ronald Boellaard; John M Boone; Patricia E Cole; James J Conklin; Gary S Dorfman; Pamela S Douglas; Willy Eidsaunet; Cathy Elsinger; Richard A Frank; Constantine Gatsonis; Maryellen L Giger; Sandeep N Gupta; David Gustafson; Otto S Hoekstra; Edward F Jackson; Lisa Karam; Gary J Kelloff; Paul E Kinahan; Geoffrey McLennan; Colin G Miller; P David Mozley; Keith E Muller; Rick Patt; David Raunig; Mark Rosen; Haren Rupani; Lawrence H Schwartz; Barry A Siegel; A Gregory Sorensen; Richard L Wahl; John C Waterton; Walter Wolf; Gudrun Zahlmann; Brian Zimmerman
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-02-15       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 4.  Challenges and opportunities for imaging journals: emerging from the shadows.

Authors:  Herbert Y Kressel
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2011-08-17       Impact factor: 2.199

5.  Treatment assessment of radiotherapy using MR functional quantitative imaging.

Authors:  Zheng Chang; Chunhao Wang
Journal:  World J Radiol       Date:  2015-01-28

6.  Scattering by single physically large and weak scatterers in the beam of a single-element transducer.

Authors:  Jeremy P Kemmerer; Michael L Oelze; Miklós Gyöngy
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 7.  Advancing Drug Discovery and Development Using Molecular Imaging (ADDMI): an Interest Group of the World Molecular Imaging Society and an Inaugural Session on Positron Emission Tomography (PET).

Authors:  Shil Patel; Karl Schmidt; Jacob Hesterman; Jack Hoppin
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 3.488

8.  Managers of Molecular Imaging Laboratories (MOMIL) Interest Group.

Authors:  Michael L Nickels; Mark D Pagel
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 3.488

Review 9.  Methods and challenges in quantitative imaging biomarker development.

Authors:  Richard G Abramson; Kirsteen R Burton; John-Paul J Yu; Ernest M Scalzetti; Thomas E Yankeelov; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Mishal Mendiratta-Lala; Brian J Bartholmai; Dhakshinamoorthy Ganeshan; Leon Lenchik; Rathan M Subramaniam
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 3.173

Review 10.  MR Imaging Biomarkers in Oncology Clinical Trials.

Authors:  Richard G Abramson; Lori R Arlinghaus; Adrienne N Dula; C Chad Quarles; Ashley M Stokes; Jared A Weis; Jennifer G Whisenant; Eduard Y Chekmenev; Igor Zhukov; Jason M Williams; Thomas E Yankeelov
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 2.266

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.